§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the agreement to reprocess nuclear material from Georgia at Dounreay.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson)I thank the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for his question.
The United Kingdom will shortly take delivery of approximately 5 kg of fresh and spent highly enriched uranium fuel that has been held at a civil research reactor in Tbilisi in Georgia. The Government's decision to accept the fuel was made in support of our policy on non-proliferation and our obligations to enhance security and safety.
The United Kingdom and United States experts who examined the Georgian reactor site concluded that the fuel was inadequately protected. Given that highly enriched uranium of this type is ideally suited for use in a nuclear weapon, it was essential that it was moved to a secure location. The fact that the United Kingdom is taking the material shows the Government's strong commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We shall be making a significant contribution to international security. Hon. Members will know that the 1996 summit in Moscow reaffirmed the commitment of the G8 countries to take action in support of that aim.
Other G8 countries are contributing to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. The United States, for example, has taken 600 kg of highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan. Russia has taken 173 kg of fissile material from Iraq since the Gulf war. France, Germany and Canada are involved in projects to convert stocks of excess plutonium from Russia's dismantled nuclear weapons into fuel for reactors.
The Government are determined to demonstrate that we, too, are committed to solving in a practical way the problems of nuclear proliferation. The uranium from Georgia will be held by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay. The vast majority will be usable immediately by the authority in its routine production of medical isotope targets, which are a vital component in both the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. This amount will permit the manufacture of an additional 5 million cancer treatments. The spent fuel—of which there is only 0.8 kg—will result, after reprocessing, in a small amount of intermediate-level radioactive waste. As Georgia has no other nuclear material and no facilities for storing waste, the United Kingdom is making an exception to its policy of long standing that waste generated by reprocessing foreign spent fuel should be returned to the country of origin.
The small quantity of waste will be retained in the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, it will add about two drums of intermediate-level nuclear waste to the existing 14,000 drums at Dounreay. No decision has yet been made on exactly where it will be stored. The House will be advised on that. In accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines, which state that, for security reasons, 822 movements of nuclear materials should not be made public in advance, we were under an obligation to keep confidential the fact that the material was to be moved from Georgia to the United Kingdom. We intended to inform Parliament of the details of the project on the day that the material arrived. Although, in accordance with the guidelines, we are not at this stage able to reveal publicly the date of the arrival of the highly enriched uranium in the United Kingdom, we shall, of course, notify Parliament on the date.
§ Mr. MaclennanI thank the Minister for that reply. While I recognise the nature of the international guidelines to which he referred, with regard to intelligence about the date of movement, does he agree that it would have been better if the news of the agreement had come from the Government directly, not from the columns of the New York Times? Does he accept—I think that he clearly does—that if weapons-grade nuclear material is at risk of getting into the hands of dangerous people, there is a duty on the Government to seek to safeguard it by international collaborative action? While I recognise that the regulators have acknowledged the capability of Dounreay to handle the material safely and adapt it to benign use, including medical isotopes, can the Minister affirm again, in the light of the wild statements that have been made notably by the Scottish National party that Scotland is the nuclear dustbin of the world, that other countries are bearing a much heavier part of the international burden than Britain?
Will Her Majesty's Government seize this opportunity to initiate an open and wide international debate on the need to tackle the danger of unstable and unsuitable reactor systems in the states of the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe, which give rise to concern? In the light of the expertise and resources of the five permanent members of the Security Council, it must make sense to embrace the need to tackle the matter not only in the general terms of the non-proliferation agreement but in detailed terms of particular reactors.
§ Mr. HendersonI thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising those important issues. On the question of providing information, I shall not repeat what I said in my statement, but I agree that it would have been better had the matter been heard of first in the House. However, as he and the House will recognise, I cannot control what leaks are given to the New York Times.
On the other points of substance raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I very much agree that it is necessary to take international action to help the countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union to deal with dangerous materials. The burden should be and is being shared internationally: the United States has made a contribution and so has Russia; France, Germany and Canada have indicated that they, too, are prepared to do so. It is important that if we say that we believe strongly in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which this Government do, we are prepared to do what we need to do to help that process to be conducted safely and securely.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)Setting aside whether the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is suggesting that Mr. Alastair Campbell should extend his iron grip to the editorial staff of the New York Times, 823 does my hon. Friend agree that it is infinitely preferable that this potentially extremely dangerous material is in safe hands in this country where it can be properly dealt with than rolling around the world, with the possibility of rogue Governments, like those of Iraq and Libya, or terrorists getting hold of it?
§ Mr. HendersonI very much agree with my right hon. Friend's point. That is also the view of the Georgian Government, who themselves want those dangerous substances to be dealt with safely and securely. They very much welcome the international effort, which includes on this occasion the contribution made by the British Government.
§ Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon)Is not the Minister being complacent about the widespread concern that this serious matter has raised, not so much because of the substance of the matter, but because of the cloak-and-dagger way in which the deal was done and the underhand way in which it has come to light? Is the Minister aware that, although the Opposition will support any reasonable efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation, the way in which this secret deal has been struck is completely unacceptable? Does he recall that, when his party was in opposition, it promised that a future Labour Government would be committed to transparency and openness? Can he tell us what has happened to those promises now? Is that not another example of Labour saying one thing in opposition and doing exactly the reverse in government?
Can the Minister tell us, hand on heart, that if the news had not leaked in the New York Times, the Prime Minister was really intending to announce it, or has the leak necessitated a hasty rethink? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister was not prepared to release the information because he was afraid of the reaction on his own Back Benches? Will the Minister tell us how many other secret deals the Prime Minister has struck with President Clinton and what he hopes to get in return?
Has the Minister taken the trouble to ask the French and the Americans why they refused to take and process the nuclear waste that is now being transported to Scotland? How much more nuclear material has the Prime Minister agreed to take from the former Soviet Union? Can the Minister confirm that the Dounreay plant has both the licence and the technology to deal with this level of nuclear waste? Will he now, at last, tell the House the full terms of the agreement, so that we can make a judgment on its merits, as we should have been able to do at the outset? Finally, will he confirm that, in future, the Prime Minister will remember his pre-election promises and start to act in accordance with the principles of democratic and open government?
§ Mr. HendersonI have heard many Opposition questions in 11 years in the House, but I have never heard one as misdirected as that one. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wants the House to believe that he is soft on terrorism, but what he says is tantamount to that.
The previous Government would know, just as we now know, that there is a serious problem in dealing with these materials in countries such as Georgia. That is why an international agreement was made at the summit in Moscow in 1996, which the then Prime Minister attended, 824 and at which he endorsed the principles that were agreed. What the Government are now doing is making a contribution as part of that international agreement.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a draft parliamentary answer had already been prepared to give to the House once this matter could be announced to the House, and that those preparations had been made, but a time scale could not be put on it then, and it still cannot.
I am assured by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that it is satisfied with the work that Dounreay will undertake. I am satisfied that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is perfectly capable of dealing with this substance effectively, and that view is supported in Dounreay.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)When did the request come, and who made it? Was the International Atomic Energy Agency consulted about the transaction? Was Euratom consulted under the European arrangements?
If it is a fact that the importation of nuclear material without the requirement that the waste be re-exported is to be Government policy, would it not be sensible to allow the House to debate it, as occurred in 1978 when, after the Parker commission, there was a full debate and a vote before the THORP project was established?
§ Mr. HendersonThe Government were originally approached by the American Government in autumn 1997, to seek a UK Government view on this international problem, which had to be dealt with. Some weeks ago, after considerable consultation had taken place with those involved, the Government decided that the project should be supported. I hope that I have made it clear that this is an exception to UK policy, because of the particular circumstances. The House is, of course, free to discuss the matter in a wider debate on these matters at any time, as appropriate.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)Will the Minister confirm that the Scotland Bill, if enacted, would provide that Members of the Scottish Parliament would not have a competence to discuss in Edinburgh transport arrangements of nuclear waste of this kind? Will he agree to place in the Library a note, setting out in precise terms the agreement struck with President Clinton, and the particulars in which the normal licensing regime has been relaxed?
§ Mr. HendersonWhen I give the House the full information that I have committed myself to give, that information will be part of it.
§ Mr. HendersonAny detail that is not announced in a parliamentary answer or from the Dispatch Box will be placed in the Library.
The Scottish Parliament will have legislative and executive competence over the regulation of radioactive discharges—the functions that are currently carried out by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Nuclear energy is, however, a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament will have no direct responsibility for the operations at Dounreay, nor for regulating the storage of nuclear material at that site.
§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)Would my hon. Friend care to comment on reports that this matter 825 involved a breach or waiver of some regulation, whereby nuclear material should be processed in the UK only if it is to be transported back to its country of origin? If there was such a breach or waiver of a regulation, does not that reinforce the case for seeking prior parliamentary approval or, at the very least, for a prior statement to be made in the House?
§ Mr. HendersonI understand my hon. Friend's point, but two issues are involved. One is security. It would not be possible to return any processed products to Georgia because that would present a security risk. That was not an option. Therefore, if the United Kingdom was to contribute to the international effort, another means of dealing with the products had to be found. It was agreed that an exception should be made to our normal practice in this case. It was not possible to announce the decision in advance, because that would have given notice to potential terrorists in Georgia or elsewhere that there were dangerous materials on their doorstep that could be used to make devastating nuclear weapons. For those reasons, confidential measures had to be taken in advance.
§ Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth)Notwithstanding the Minister's remarks about Dounreay, he must be aware that long-standing concerns about safety standards at the facility are expressed frequently in Scotland. Not five days ago, an article appeared in The Herald in Scotland under the headline, "Dounreay's days as the nuclear dustbin to end", with the sub-headline, "Watchdog bans storage of irradiated waste without means of reprocessing". Given that the reprocessing plants at Dounreay have not been operational for the past 18 months and that, as far as we know, there is no current licence, the waste will not be reprocessed in the near future. In those circumstances, can the Minister explain why the secret deal was done?
§ Mr. HendersonI thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I must state emphatically that Dounreay is not a nuclear waste bin. Dounreay is a modem facility which processes by-products from other important areas. The hon. Lady will know that safety is always at the forefront of concern at Dounreay. Dounreay provides important technology for medical isotopes, which are an important constituent in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. That is just one important task that is undertaken at Dounreay. I think that the hon. Lady should be a little more objective in her consideration.
§ Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)Is it not the blunt truth that some hon. Members have gone over the top on this issue? It is a storm in a teacup: in terms of international waste disposal, we are talking about microscopic amounts of material. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who led for the Opposition, acted thoroughly irresponsibly by suggesting that the transport of the material across Europe, by sea or by other means, should be advertised internationally before its arrival in the United Kingdom. That is the most irresponsible response to a statement that I have heard since the election last year.
Does not the question of international collaboration point to the need for the international community to get together and find a single international solution to the 826 problem of nuclear waste disposal? We cannot continue to pick on different parts of the United Kingdom, as Nirex did in west Cumbria, or as was done some years ago at Dounreay, at the sites in Lincolnshire, or in Leicestershire or Bedfordshire about four years ago. I recall also the Billingham argument of about six years ago. We must abandon that approach and find a single international site that will allow us finally to resolve the problem of nuclear waste disposal.
§ Mr. HendersonHon. Members will know that my hon. Friend has considerable knowledge in this area, and that is much respected by the House. He understands the important considerations involved—as did the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who asked the private notice question. Non-proliferation issues are key matters of international security, and there are ways of carrying through the policy safely and securely. It requires international action and international obligations, and we are playing a major part in that process.
§ Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell)In respect of the Minister's last comments, it is important to find an international solution to the problem. I hope that the Foreign Office will take seriously the suggestion offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, of further international discussion to clarify the position. On the subject of secrecy, the criticism is not that the details of the transfer were not made apparent, but that the principle of the transfer was not revealed. The Minister should address that issue.
On the specific issue of Dounreay, the Minister's statement makes it clear that not all the material can currently be processed at Dounreay. Can he give us an idea when that material can be processed? If there should be further undue delay, is there a possibility that it may be transferred elsewhere in the United Kingdom, such as to Sellafield?
§ Mr. HendersonOn the hon. Gentleman's first point, it would have been impossible to draw any distinction between the principle and the particular circumstances. All those involved who have any knowledge, and principally potential criminals and terrorists, would know the exact nature of the problem if a major debate were opened up on the issue. The hon. Gentleman will understand that.
§ Mr. TaylorRubbish
§ Mr. Hendersonit is not rubbish. As members of the previous Government will understand, that would become known in those circles in countries such as Georgia.
On the question whether the spent fuel will be reprocessed at Dounreay, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that is the intention. I cannot say when that will take place, as that is an operational matter. On the question of storage, that requires further consideration.
§ Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet)As I have told the House before, I was once upon a time a radiation biologist. I have also been a campaigner in an election in a constituency that was dominated by the atomic energy industry. That experience taught me that the industry 827 cannot, does not and will not accept the public's perception of the risk, and equally that the public will never accept the assurances that the industry gives about the measure of the risks. More openness is needed.
I am sure that the action that the Government have taken in accepting the material has decreased the risk to the world as a whole, at the expense, perhaps, of a slightly increased risk to the UK. I do not believe that the public will understand the trade-off that was necessary there.
I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the sort of international response suggested by some of my hon. Friends. We need a Kyoto-like conference between producers of waste, reprocessors of waste, Governments and environmentalists, in order to get a worldwide approach to the issue. At present, the British Government have the standing in the world to lead that effort.
§ Mr. HendersonThat was a knowledgeable contribution from my hon. Friend. I agree that there is a need for public education. The public have a right to know what is happening in their nation, on their behalf and, if they happen to live in Dounreay, on their doorstep. A wider debate on these matters is needed, and I support that.
I can tell my hon. Friend that there was a recognition in 1996 at the G8 summit in Moscow that international action was needed. Britain was represented at the time by the previous Government. This Government have made it clear to our partners in G8 and elsewhere that we are determined to follow a policy that is rigorous in pursuing non-proliferation. That means that there must be international action, collaboration and obligation.
§ Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)After Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and a series of nuclear accidents, some of which were made public and some of which were concealed in this country and abroad, it is not surprising that the public are sceptical about the claims of the nuclear industry concerning their own safety.
I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend this afternoon, but will he endorse the various comments that we have heard about the need for wide public debate about the future of nuclear waste disposal, and the need for an international agreement to solve a growing international problem? Can he give us an assurance that the shipment from Georgia is a one-off, without prejudice to any future shipments? Does it provide a precedent for the future?
§ Mr. HendersonI have made it clear in response to other questions that there is an international obligation, which my hon. Friend mentioned and to which the Government are committed. There is a need for international action. I agree that there should be as wide a debate as possible on these matters, and the wider that debate, the more it will help people to recognise the important obligations that we all have, and the important work that is carried out by those in Dounreay on behalf of us all.